I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read the
recent posts concerning Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's many
misadventures or, to have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some of the
logic that underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts and
accompanying signage to some "sinful" event, condemn those in attendance and,
thereafter give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying
surprise. Now, that's a bit of a charicature but, just a bit.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 28, 2006 07:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Imagination run amock Lance .......... You have seen
things that are not there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on over
a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've
"demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology
for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak,
David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your
offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of
others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these groups
take offence and retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some
occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a
midwife (I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver
a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006
6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times
to the fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who
disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must not be a true
believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at
all...
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer
prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out
the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.....The Scriptures are
NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many
times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need
understanding, the
scriptures are to be "understood"
rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He
turns it off
or on according to the condition
of the heart. God is not mocked....
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at
differing conclusions as to the meaning of the
Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord returns
which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who
think they are "true" today He
will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you who practice
lawlessness" It's only as we
abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not
some fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow
way
and headed toward the strait
gate.
Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM)
believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to
the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the
Scriptures)?
Yes....
IFO do not believe that this is anywhere
promised in the Scriptures themselves.
It is not only promised it is demonstrated in
the life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots
of
books before he fell down before the Lord on
the Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not
afterwards.
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my
apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you
would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so
quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to
me -- although I know it was not intentionally so --
that you would suggest that I or the others
would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you
do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:>) and
myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a
doctrine, then surely you do know that David Miller would
never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior
would be anathema to us all.
ATST Bill it is
insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned
above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included
an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records that he is
the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and
that He is the second Adam.
And so I was
hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be
willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner
(for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity from
a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be.
Let go of truth out of
some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray
that Dean is more mature than to fall for this.
I know, for example, that John is
getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen
nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so it
can play for a while. And while I am confident that the Bible
does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both Adam and
his posterity, I am also persuaded that the
last and best words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am
of the opinion that John's position, while not something I can
readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us all, because
it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs on
this very important doctrine.
It is written
Bill - the last and best words are written already and you
can take them to the Bank. Believing them is the problem.
Why would you want to
malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right
place?
I would like to suggest that you take
a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's
humanity. Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You
may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want
to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your
questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime, I hope you will
consider my request. Sincerely,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26,
2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature?
John writes > No one
in this discussion believes that Christ sinned,
Dean.
cd responds >
Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen
nature sinful nature that is what one is saying
John.
No,
Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us
saying. Your hearing, however, is influenced by your
view of sin. That John and I and Debbie and Lance, and
even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage
point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see
well enough from your perch to identify things from ours?
I began my previous post with an assurance that none
of us view Jesus as a sinner; John did the same
with his; yet you continue to speak only from a
limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might
see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can
see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful
flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in
that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been
a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for
just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective?
cd: Wow tough response
Bill-I hope my response to David concerning didn't influence
you to do likewise as the topic are different-I am suppose to
give my life- if God put me in that
position- for the brethren. I can also assume one
can defend those same brethren from looking like fools. Let's
not carry our conversation to that same order of
battle-okay? I have not read anything on Debbie belief of this
issue to support you stance-I would like to read them. When we
first started this debate most of the group stated Christ to
be as "common man"-I objected to that and tried to show He was
not common-but rather more than common as man went to a state
of sin that Christ did not go too.Bill -this is a very
significant difference. If you have changed you view or make a
mistake in your earlier statement by claiming Christ the same
as "common man" then say so and we move on. Believe it or not
I am not focused on proving you wro ng as I am impressed by
you and want to learn what God has given you but on this
matter it would seem that God gave knowledge to me-but at
your level there is much I can learn from you.Can the
foot say to the hand:" Hey stop walking and start clapping
!". Concerning David M. there is a lot of truth with him
and He has a lot to offer us but I cannot find a place of
trust for Him (may God show me error if it exists). If my
belief is limited I can only hope it is limited to the
bible.
You have
a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer
to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience
through suffering" and that it was only after "having been
perfected" -- that is, after his resurrection even --
that he became the Author of
salvation.
cd: Bill as I have shown
before. Suffering for a Christian in this world comes from
resisting sin and therefore becoming opposed by people that
sin.If I am not resisting I am not suffering
because I am giving into sin and have no opposition
to suffer from. There is also a suffering of the flesh that
comes from that flesh wanting sin and our instructed to bring
that flesh into subjection to the spirit-but as both
Wesley and I believe-there is a place where on can put
the flesh under so much subjection that it breaks completely
leaving one free from the drawing of the flesh towards sin or
even the thoughts of sin this is called "Total
sanctification"-I believe Jesus put His flesh under total
control. With us it is still possible to fall back into that
sin after the second(or deeper level
of) sanctification-yet unlikely- but for Christ as
it was not possible as He made that falling into sin not
possible for Himself through Godly fear.Hope this make sense
to you as it works for me.
You have
a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself
says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too
might be sanctified by the truth."
cd: Our difference in the
area of sanctification has to do with the definition of
sanctification and how one applies that term. I believe this
to mean:" I keep myself Holy for God to do His work so that
you too can become Holy for God because of me and by the truth
I live and speak. This meaning does not conflict with what I
am stating Bill. Christ kept Himself from sin to help us-no
common man ever came close to doing this-so what is being
missed in the majority of this group
thought?
y SANC'TIFY, v.t. [Low L.
sanctifico; from sanctus, holy, and facio, to make.]
1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or
religious use.
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified
it.
You have
a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen
man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our
sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the
flesh.
cd: I believe Christ put on
a flesh (covering) like ours but did not conform to this world
which follows Satan as we have as "common men" therefore He
was not as we were but as we now are- because of Him
( speaking of course of a mature Christian). Satan had to be
giving his chance to lose or hold the world so Christ came in
the state Satan controlled (the flesh)-and had claim too
in order to take that claim away. He came to the strong man
house to bind the strong man in his own house.He defeated the
strong man by staying pure and proved He was stronger than the
strong man through resistance to impurity.
You have
a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures
us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according
to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we
"share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of
the same," ... that he might assume the nature
of Abraham's offspring.
cd:Bill - you
misunderstand me in this area-Christ did share in our
humanity-even in flesh and blood as David and Abraham's
offspring.
Indeed
their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if
you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you
please keep silent about things you cannot see.
cd: Sorry Bill I chose not
to remain silent as that would mean not to offer a different
view and I encourage you to also not keep silent by
answering my last post to you on this issue or simple go on to
another issue.Here's one that John brought to the table:Can
Children sin and be accountable for sin-your thoughts? By the
way be nice:-) Thanks bro.
Bill --
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
-- No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus
Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing
message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus
Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date:
1/27/2006
|